Delegates
to the first Meeting of the Intergovernmental Committee for the Cartagena
Protocol on Biosafety (ICCP) met in working and contact groups throughout
the day. Working Group I (WG-I) debated recommendations on the pilot phase
of the Biosafety Clearing-House (BCH) and on handling, transport,
packaging and identification. Delegates in Working Group II (WG-II)
considered decision-making, compliance, capacity building and the roster
of experts. In both Working Groups, delegates consid­ered recommendations
for inter-sessional action, as well as Chair’s summaries of the
discussions (except for the pilot phase of the BCH).

Despite
fits and starts during the week, such as a late night contact group on the
Biosafety Clearing-House and a WG-II discussion on capacity building and
the roster, delegates were generally pleased to emerge from the Working
Groups with approved recommendations in hand. Many hoped to end ICCP-1’s
final Plenary in time for an extended lunch in Montpellier.

*
To view PDF files, you will need the free Adobe Acrobat Reader:

Transgenic
Golden Rice : a GMO against malnutrition? The Response from the South

Tewoldi Gebre Egziabher focused his presentation on
the genetic engineering aspect of biotechnology, whereby genes are loaded
onto a parasitic vector in order to penetrate a target genome. Because the
net results of such engineering are not fully understood and may only be
recognized far into the future, Tewoldi stated that current commercial
field trials and risk assessments were not sufficient. The introduction of
new species, new enzymes, and new byproducts of the biotechnology industry
may have long-term effects requiring increasingly greater reliance on
genetic engineering. distrusting biotechnology companies' commercial
interests, Tewoldi warned against a possible future whereby the need for
genetically engineered food shifts production away from farmers and their
national governments, and introduces technological reliance on a few
profit-motivated corporations.

Vandana Shiva opened her presentation by clearly stating that there are
several reasons why Golden Rice and other genetically engineered food
projects should be shelved. Shiva described human Vitamin A
deficiencies as one result of the Green Revolution of agricultural
industrialization, which established monoculture practices, agricultural
intensification, massive pesticide/herbicide use to eliminate competitive
species; developments that have left agricultural products weakened and
created structural imbalances in the industry. Taking into account this
history of industrialization, current developments in biotechnology to
fortify food to treat the malnourished is thus said to be "incestuous
propaganda" to make a past technological failure look like a
technological miracle. Shiva also warned against the potential for
the development of dependency, replacing indigenous production, erasing
local or traditional knowledge and practices, and restructuring the food
system into a corporate one.

José Bové speaking as a farmer and representing the Confédération
Paysanne, stated
that genetically modified organisms were not the answer to malnourishment
in the world. Bové encouraged more public research, sovereignty in food
safety, and respect for biodiversity.

Nancy Meyers presented responses to internal US State Department
discussions on the precautionary principle in the interests of elucidating
such arguments which have been raised in negotiations on the Protocol,
international trade, environment and food safety discussions.
Meyers' microscopic examination of the precautionary principle was an
instructive presentation on how the principle could be invoked, with a
view to present issues of uncertainty within risk assessments associated
with biosafety and genetically modified organisms. While confirming that
the principle is indeed about precaution, Meyers made the point that it is
a process of acknowledging our values (ethics), examining what we do and
do not know (science), and acting accordingly. Discussions centered upon
the contestable concepts of whose values, whose knowledge and whose
actions were actually being questioned and, in light of this relative
positioning, whether existing applications of the principle were indeed questionable.

Katherine Barrett presented her paper "Applying the precautionary
principle to agricultural biotechnology"; a framework for applying
the principle to the release of genetically engineered crops. Barrett
reports that clearer definitions of harm should be acknowledged, and that
there exists a scientific error bias toward safety where there should be
an error bias of caution, hence, cross-disciplinary research and the
incorporation of traditional knowledge should be encouraged; and inter
alia, that the burden of proof should be shifted to the developers of
potentially hazardous technologies, and require them to operate in open,
transparent processes subject to review by independent third
parties. More information can be found at http://www.sehn.org/precaution.html